3 ms·

> "We’ve tried socialism." I don't remember from school the bit where Mr Socialism said "let the workers sieze the means of production so they can shutdown the

> "We’ve tried socialism." I don't remember from school the bit where Mr Socialism said "let the workers sieze the means of production so they can shutdown the means of production, because they are lazy and stupid". "define:Socialism"[1] - "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively". NB. that it involves production, and is /not/ "Systems of social organization in which lazy people get paid for doing nothing". > "If you tell people they will get $12k no matter how hard they work, they won’t work" Have you never seen or heard of volunteers? There are countries where the unemployed get money, e.g. the UK, and yet most people still work. How does this fit into your claim? [1] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=define%3Asocialism&ia=definition https://duckduckgo.com/?q=define%3Asocialism&ia=definition

qeternity 6y ago
> Have you never seen or heard of volunteers? Yes, they are obviously doing the work for other reasons. > There are countries where the unemployed get money, e.g. the UK, and yet most people still work. How does this fit into your claim? You aren’t getting it. Those people still work because they can earn more than what the unemployment is. If all of a sudden you said even if you work, you’ll only earn the unemployment benefit, then nobody would work. Guys please stop deciding you want to be upset about a comment and then trying to backsolve your rationale.
- colineartheta 6y ago
  Or, perhaps you’re just wrong? You can’t even be bothered to answer the simple question of when socialism has been attempted.
- jodrellblank 6y ago
  > "Yes, they are obviously doing the work for other reasons." Yes, and that disproves your claim that people only work for money, and without more money people won't do more work. > "You aren’t getting it. Those people still work because they can earn more than what the unemployment is." If all of a sudden you said even if you work, you’ll only earn the unemployment benefit, then nobody would work.*" Volunteers earn no extra money for their work, and yet still work. Many people work unpaid overtime out of loyalty for their employer / coworkers / customers / patients, many people work out of passion and interest and hobbying ("starving artist" trope). And, again, you're propagandising "Socialism" changing from "people get money without working" to "people can't get more than a fixed limited return on their work", which again it isn't. But let's go with that definition - if everything collectively owned, the more stuff there is the more stuff is collectively owned, so the more benefit everyone gets. When the Federal Government builds more roads, you personally get more roads you can drive on as a benefit. So even if Socialism was "you can't earn more than the minimum wage {because the collective takes it from you!}", you are part of the collective, so it still wouldn't be the case that people got no more benefit for producing more, as you claim.

qeternity 6y ago

> Have you never seen or heard of volunteers? Yes, they are obviously doing the work for other reasons. > There are countries where the unemployed get money, e.g. the UK, and yet most people still work. How does this fit into your claim? You aren’t getting it. Those people still work because they can earn more than what the unemployment is. If all of a sudden you said even if you work, you’ll only earn the unemployment benefit, then nobody would work. Guys please stop deciding you want to be upset about a comment and then trying to backsolve your rationale.

colineartheta 6y ago
Or, perhaps you’re just wrong? You can’t even be bothered to answer the simple question of when socialism has been attempted.
jodrellblank 6y ago
> "Yes, they are obviously doing the work for other reasons." Yes, and that disproves your claim that people only work for money, and without more money people won't do more work. > "You aren’t getting it. Those people still work because they can earn more than what the unemployment is." If all of a sudden you said even if you work, you’ll only earn the unemployment benefit, then nobody would work.*" Volunteers earn no extra money for their work, and yet still work. Many people work unpaid overtime out of loyalty for their employer / coworkers / customers / patients, many people work out of passion and interest and hobbying ("starving artist" trope). And, again, you're propagandising "Socialism" changing from "people get money without working" to "people can't get more than a fixed limited return on their work", which again it isn't. But let's go with that definition - if everything collectively owned, the more stuff there is the more stuff is collectively owned, so the more benefit everyone gets. When the Federal Government builds more roads, you personally get more roads you can drive on as a benefit. So even if Socialism was "you can't earn more than the minimum wage {because the collective takes it from you!}", you are part of the collective, so it still wouldn't be the case that people got no more benefit for producing more, as you claim.